Plaintiff Lonnie Johnson filed this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. Defendant requested a jury trial in this matter.

Currently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 29. After considering all of the matters submitted by the parties, the undersigned makes the following Report and Recommendation.

1. BACKGROUND

This Motion for Summary Judgment has a somewhat unusual procedural history so I will set forth the procedural background first and then enumerate the relevant factual background.

A. Procedural

Defendant filed her Motion for Summary Judgment on February 7, 2013. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff then filed a second Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 34. Defendant filed a Reply. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff then filed a Response to Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff then filed a Notice requesting the assistance of the Court, in the form of a questionnaire, in responding to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 37. The Court prepared a questionnaire for Plaintiff. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff then filed the completed questionnaire as another Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 39. Defendant then filed a Sur-Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff filed a Supplement to his Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 41.[1] Plaintiff then filed a Response to Sur-Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant. ECF No. 45.

I considered all of this briefing and issued a Report and Recommendation on August 14, 2013. ECF No. 48. In the Report and Recommendation, I recommended Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as to Plaintiff's (1) official capacity claims against all Defendants; (2) individual capacity claim against Dr. Devlin for denial of medical care regarding Plaintiff's blood pressure; (3) individual capacity claims against Sheriff Monte Stringfellow; and (4) individual capacity claims against Sharon Harned. Further, I recommended the Motion be denied as to Plaintiff's (1) individual capacity claim against Dr. Devlin for delay of medical care regarding Plaintiff's blood pressure; and (2) individual capacity claim against Dr. Devlin for denial of medical care regarding Plaintiff's alleged diabetes. Lastly, I recommended Defendants Stringfellow and Harned be dismissed with prejudice from this action leaving for later resolution the remaining individual capacity claims against Defendant Devlin.

Defendant Devlin objected to the Report and Recommendation arguing Plaintiff failed to produce any verifying medical evidence that any delay in medical care produced a negative prognosis for Plaintiff and that Plaintiff's medical records show Defendant Devlin was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs.

On September 30, 2013, the Honorable Susan O. Hickey issued an Order adopting in part and declining to adopt in part the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 58. Specifically, Judge Hickey stated:

Dr. Devlin objects to the Report and Recommendation to the extent that Plaintiff has not provided any verifying medical evidence to support his claims. The objection is well-taken. The Court notes that Plaintiff has made a request for his medical records. Thus, the Court refers this matter back to Judge Bryant to reconsider Dr. Devlin's summary judgment arguments after Plaintiff's medical records are received.

ECF No. 58.

On November 8, 2013, Plaintiff's requested medical records were received by the Court and a copy was forwarded to him.

On November 25, 2013, I directed Plaintiff to file a supplemental response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, Plaintiff was advised:

[T]o limit this supplement to the remaining claims against Dr. Devlin-individual capacity claim against Dr. Devlin for delay of medical care regarding Plaintiff's blood pressure; and individual capacity claim against Dr. Devlin for denial of medical care regarding Plaintiff's alleged diabetes-and to specifically focus on how the medical records, now in ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.